From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 23 00:21:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA12946 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA12937 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id JAA23795 for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:20:57 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA02060; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:52:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19970423085241.VL55418@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:52:41 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sendmail tricks anyone? References: <19970422202251.WE20864@uriah.heep.sax.de> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: ; from Dan Busarow on Apr 22, 1997 18:20:44 -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Dan Busarow wrote: > > > R$={SpamIP}$* $| $* $#error $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Access denied" > > > > Curious, do you have an idea whether it's possible here to have > > sendmail accepting the mail but throwing it away? I guess, maybe by > > defining a `null' mailer or such. > > Won't work. The only useful thing these new rules can return is > an error. All of the address rewriting that gets done here is > thrown away. I thought of something like: R$={SpamIP}$* $| $* $#null $@ 5.7.1 $: "571 Access denied" ... Mnull, P=/usr/bin/true, F=lsDFMAw5:/|@qrmn9, S=10/30, R=20/40, T=DNS/RFC822/X-Unix, A=true > Anyway, the idea of using a 5XX error response is that repeated > fatal errors might cause them to drop the address from their lists > (ya, right :) I doubt. I think they'll fall back to the less-prioritized MXen. > While the {SpamIP} rule won't be useful, the others will catch relay > attempts and that's what this rule set is for. Yep. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)